My libertarianism stems from the idea that self-sovereignity and freedom are the most desirable things. However, what I just realize is that I just presuppose those concepts.

Well: if you need me, I'll be reexamining my entire belief set politically...

I had a revelation years ago, and every day I'm reminded of it. I realized years ago, that very few people are logical, honorable, or decent. Most people are illogical, dishonorable, self centered, deceitful, close minded, and indecent. Also people are always fricken looking for disputes.

Sorry for the rant, I'm just sick of people in general.

Funny thing is that is why I started to become a Libertarian; I realized that Anarchy couldn't work because people are Sh** with Cr** filling, so I settled for Minarchy.

"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle

My libertarianism stems from the idea that self-sovereignity and freedom are the most desirable things. However, what I just realize is that I just presuppose those concepts.

Well: if you need me, I'll be reexamining my entire belief set politically...

Yes, Yes you did. Now add social justice in there and all will be fine.

The two are not reconcilable. Tax harms liberty. Economic freedom harms equality, to give two examples. To someone generally politically consistent it depends on whether one prefers liberty or equality. (Or some other value such as order/culture for fascism)

Freedom is a paradox. If all is free, then none is free because the freedom of one leaves the power to destroy the freedom of another. The Government is the antitheses of freedom, but freedom needs a counterpart to exist in the first place and that is why government is necessary. Anarchism, I don't understand why anyone thinks thats a good idea.

"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault

At 1/16/2012 8:28:53 PM, 000ike wrote:Freedom is a paradox. If all is free, then none is free because the freedom of one leaves the power to destroy the freedom of another. The Government is the antitheses of freedom, but freedom needs a counterpart to exist in the first place and that is why government is necessary. Anarchism, I don't understand why anyone thinks thats a good idea.

Is there some underlying suggestion here that our government is fascist or arbitrary? Are we as Americans unable to conduct our everyday lives however we please without undue infringement?

How were your liberties taken today?

I think he means equality like the equality OWS is jabbering about; the distribution of wealth pretty equally. Which is not inherently good or evil.

Well, before we go deeper into "the equal distribution of wealth," what would you say wealth is to begin with? Because, as far as I understand it, "equal distribution of wealth" is a nonsensical statement and OWS protestors are simply indicating social unrest due to economic inequities, which may or may not have to do with the fair dissemination of available resources and ethical/responsible business conduct in consideration of the large numbers of people corporate dealings affect.

In the order of nature, everything is commonly owned by man. The only way one can gain private property from all that public property is through mixing labor with the natural resources or land. However, according to the Lockean Proviso, the only thing that makes this conversion of publicly owned materials morally permissible is the condition that enough and as good is left for everyone else. '

If you need proof that all materials were commonly owned, then refer to this syllogism:P1 - All people have the right to liveP2 - There are naturally provided materials for which the existence of a human are WHOLLY and DIRECTLY dependentP3 - All people have the right to those naturally provided materialsC - If one has a right to something, then he has some form of ownership of it.

Corporations essentially plunder and monopolize the worlds natural resources. Stealing water, oil, fruits and other goods from 3rd world countries and redistributing them to the affluent worlds. On our very own ground, one has no access to clean water unless he buys a bottle of mass-produced capped water, a water purification system, or pays a company for water services.

Because of this redistricting of property, it has become an act of coercion and injustice to those who do not have access to these goods, generally the poor, because had this plundering not occurred, all would still be equal in whats provided for them to at least keep alive.

This is why there is an obligation to protect the poor. They are not poor because you foolishly think they are lazy. They are not poor because they enjoy being dependent on others, they are poor because all cannot be rich and people have monopolized goods from what was once all our property.

The anger of communism is derived from this collective theft. The conviction of liberalism is derived to mediate and correct this collective theft.

"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault